Is call of duty an art?

[Kayos]

If we say that all video games come under art, then yes it is, but it's art that a 2 - 3 year old drew with a crayon that only parents would place on their fridge.

If we go with the some games can, some can't, i'm gunna say that it isn't art, while it
may have good graphics, it lacks everything else.

 

[zehydra]

yes, it's still art.

Just because you think it's bad art doesn't make it not art.

 

[Alexnader]

Call of Duty is art in the same way that The Iliad is literature. And if you don't immediately understand what I mean, then you're probably not qualified to participate in the discussion.

Pshhht yeah right. If you still think art belongs in an ivory tower where only critics, collectors, students and artists (read, the educated/experienced or elite) can look at it then you're probably not qualified to participate in the discussion.

yes, it's still art.

Just because you think it's bad art doesn't make it not art.

I don't think CoD is bad art, it's not art at all. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it's bad art.

 

[Hamish Durie]

in my opinion no it is not CoD only brings in money and well money not my respect or my money or my love

 

[Coffinshaker]

As an artist, I can say "yes, it is". there are a lot of arguments as to why it's not, mostly they boil down to "it's violent". or "you just shoot things, it's all about reactions, how's that art"?

but lets look at it this way... LOTS of famous works of art are very violent. very! everything from roman to renaissance has lots of gore and death, yet, it's art. why? how? well, because it is. COD, while being a violent game, still has all the elements of any other work of art... but the genre of FPS is just different. it has its own way of story telling, its own way of immersion, and all of that just makes it a different kind of art.

it's just that, because of the nature of the game, we as a society (read: uptight and prudish) have tried to separate ourselves from anything that's even slightly controversial. look back in art history... anything not mainstream or that was controversial, was called out as "not art", yet, 10s, 100s, 1000s of years later, what do we study it as? well... art!

give it time... interactive media, including FPS or fighting games, will one day be recognized for the artworks they are. probably not in our lifetimes, but who knows, maybe our kids won't be so closeminded.

that said, I think there is a bit of discrepancy between the terms "high art" and "art". I think people confuse the two. I mean, when you hear the word "art", you think of works by Michelangelo or Picasso or Degas... but not the logo for Starbucks or heck, whatever's on your desktop wallpaper at the moment. despite my hatred for the term "high art", I think that's what most people are trying to render COD as, rather than the general term of "art". I hope that made sense. just cause something isn't the Mona Lisa, doesn't mean it's not art!

 

[Siuki]

Assuming Call of Duty is similar to movies like Pearl Harbor, then yes. Barely. The games still have a functioning story and have demonstrated great theatrical flair these days, so I believe it fills the requirements for being art. If there are requirements at all.

 

[Wintermute_]

Hell no. well... if we're referring to the most recent and popular editions MW2 and Blops, then defiantly no. they are real shitty campaigns in terms of story and multiplayer isn't so stupendous that it warrants the "Art" brand.
Maybe the first few WWII ones, but thats pushing it.
If I had to choose the most artistic of the series, certainly would be the first modern warfare, as the story and gameplay meshed very well and when that damn nuke went off I damn near shit myself. It was executed great, and it really captured what modern warfare is... then they fucked it up in MW2 story wise, turning it into the plot from a bad tom clancy or conspiracy theorist fan fic thing.

 

[Gmano]

Call of Duty has a very well put together plot in the single player and an incredible amount of detail in the maps, characters and game mechanics. Every single aspect of every single level is placed in such a way as to maximize the experiences, it is in every way an art. and to those who say that simply because it involves shooting people it is not an art I ask you if you would consider Pulp Fiction as art? Alien? These films incorporate violence, yet both have a great amount of detail and meaning.

Edit: Ninja'd

As an artist, I can say "yes, it is". there are a lot of arguments as to why it's not, mostly they boil down to "it's violent". or "you just shoot things, it's all about reactions, how's that art"?

but lets look at it this way... LOTS of famous works of art are very violent. very! everything from roman to renaissance has lots of gore and death, yet, it's art. why? how? well, because it is. COD, while being a violent game, still has all the elements of any other work of art... but the genre of FPS is just different. it has its own way of story telling, its own way of immersion, and all of that just makes it a different kind of art.

it's just that, because of the nature of the game, we as a society (read: uptight and prudish) have tried to separate ourselves from anything that's even slightly controversial. look back in art history... anything not mainstream or that was controversial, was called out as "not art", yet, 10s, 100s, 1000s of years later, what do we study it as? well... art!

give it time... interactive media, including FPS or fighting games, will one day be recognized for the artworks they are. probably not in our lifetimes, but who knows, maybe our kids won't be so closeminded.

that said, I think there is a bit of discrepancy between the terms "high art" and "art". I think people confuse the two. I mean, when you hear the word "art", you think of works by Michelangelo or Picasso or Degas... but not the logo for Starbucks or heck, whatever's on your desktop wallpaper at the moment. despite my hatred for the term "high art", I think that's what most people are trying to render COD as, rather than the general term of "art". I hope that made sense. just cause something isn't the Mona Lisa, doesn't mean it's not art!

QFT

 

[Aprilgold]

Nope, only entertainment.

Just because its entertainment doesn't mean its not art......People haven't been painting, sculpting or making movies because its a job, they do it because they enjoy doing it. They find it entertaining as someone would playing or making a video game, And anyway just because you don't see deeper meaning in the game series in question doesn't mean its any less of a work of art.

Agree, but the final product is only praticually fun, no depth to the world or anything because they don't make a big deal what your doing or where it is, its just a plot stringing each shooting to each shooting, great for joy, but not for art. COD is like a general, run of the mill action movie, would you say that a run of the mill action movie was better then a movie the made you cheer for the heroes, hate the villain, cry and generally feel emotions? They were designing a fun experience, not an artsy game. The developers did a great job on delivering on what the game needed to be, a fun shooting game, not an artsy shooting game, because that would royally butt fuck the gameplay mechanics.
Alright, its a simple answer right here. COD is a fun game made by artists of the gaming industry who were making a fun action game, but not to qualified as art, only to be brutally fun game.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

Being art doesn't mean it's particularly good art. Call of Duty, by the fact that it's a game with an internal story (which is sufficient, but not necessary) is art. I can't judge since I haven't played the series, but if the comments are correct, it's bad art. Except Modern Warfare, sorry but what it did was genius and I strongly doubt that playing it (whenever it's on sale next on steam) will convince me it was bad art. Maybe not comparable to citizen Kane, but more then good enough to be held up as an example of why games have artistic merit instead of the reverse.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Is it art? Yes. The question is "Is it good art?", and that's for you to decide.
Art is a picture/movie/book/game/etc. designed to elicit an emotional response: sadness, hapiness, anger, enjoyment, love, you name it. FPS games, in my opinion, are designed to be fun, and not much else. a "pure" FPS to me is one like Painkiller, Doom, Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, you know, those types of FPSes. When you derive from that, you need something else to replace it, such as a great storyline.
Alternatively, FPSes can be merged with other genres to create entirely new and intuitive experiences, such as Portal (FPS+Puzzle) or Fallout 3 (FPS+RPG).
The reason Call of Duty probably gets so much hate is because it's, quite frankly, bland. There's nothing special about it. It's completely safe, it hasn't attempted to evolve once in the history of the series.
If you want a legendary FPS like Half Life or Doom, you need to do something that hasn't been done before.
All media is art, but not all of it is good art.

 

[Zhukov]

Arrrrg!

The problem with any question regarding art is that "art" is really bloody hard to define.

More specifically, it depends on whether you think the term "art" implies an inherent degree of merit. For example, do the crude penis drawings that high-school kids invariably scribble in their textbooks count as art?

Personally, I would say that CoD lacks artistic merit. Well... with the possible exception of CoD4:MW. That one was alright.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Only if you're willing to say that all movies, books, music and paintings are art can you say that all games are art. If you say that then I disagree with how you define art but that's your opinion, if you think Paris Hilton's "Stars are Blind" or all porn is still art then good luck to you sir and I'd really really like to see you curate an exhibition because it would be AWESOME.

You don't think porn is art?

It's all art, it's not all good. In fact most of it is really really shitty.

What do you call the stuff that doesn't qualify as art?


I guess you could argue that art is made by artists and that not everyone is an artist.
(Like Michael Bay isn't an artist so Transformers isn't art)
(Activision is a money hungry corporation so CoD isn't art)
I could see that. I mostly think film-making, song writing, programing, painting they are art forms you can put down your creativity and let other people experience it. So to me it's all art, no matter how crappy 99.9% of it is.

 

[wehrp3nguin]

Why can't entertainment be art? don't artists make pictures/music to occupy themselves from the day-to-day hustle and bustle? Now-a-days the one's who do it solely for money(see: sell-outs) are just the least popular artists.
In the case of the Modern Warfare series, the developers took a lot of time imagining and creating a story that would intrigue the player. The single player brings the characters all over the world, with a hypothetical WW3 scenario. MW1 depicted a Ukraine city post Chernobyl, showing a younger generation the horrors of nuclear fallout; Ferris wheel level was so artsy, it was practically a Dali painting. MW2 Shows the terrors of Suburbia, USA being ravaged by foreign invaders while asking serious questions: DO WE SAVE THE BURGER TOWN OR THE TACO JOINT?
[br]Single-player seems like art to me // Multi-player is just mindless violence; C'mon a javelin/barrets is not really practical against infantry.

One is a job, and the other is mental-sickness

[br]
In the case of Black Ops,

Spoiler

the developers took a lot of time copying and pasting stuff from Modern Warfare. How could you paint a rain forest without wild-life? Far Cry let you BE the wild-life. Metal Gear Solid 3 let you EAT THE WILDLIFE or throw it, live, at people!!!

 

[Keava]

Art is a picture/movie/book/game/etc. designed to elicit an emotional response: sadness, hapiness, anger, enjoyment, love, you name it.

I actually always had trouble with accepting that definition of art, because it makes news feed art in a way, especially these days when news outlets do seek sensation and do actively seek to affect emotions because it improves their ratings, yet same time primary function of news is to inform.

 

[woodaba]

Yeah, it is.
Its BAD art, no doubt, its doing legitimate harm to the gaming medium, and pushes other titles to the wayside to sell millions for the sole reason that "its call of duty".

I am of the belief that we cannot say that games are art then exclude any game from that.

Those paintings that babies do that throwing custard at a canvas? Picasso? Both Art.

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen? Blade Runner? Both Art.

Rebecca Black's Friday? Beethovens 5th Symphony? Both Art.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3? Knights of the Old Republic 2? Both Art.

Call of Duty has repitive gameplay, unbalanced, random multiplayer, moronic storylines, (after 4), makes more money than it ever deserves, is killing originality in the game industry, and is where the frathouse chaps breed, but to exclude it from art status is to exclude our medium from art status, and that I cannot abide.

 

[Myskomunken]

A good multiplayer map is as satisfying as any painting or movie to me. I see games as interactive art, the games sets some basic parts, where I (and other players in the case of multiplayer), fill in the gaps to make it complete.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Then it's still art... it doesn't matter if the Dev thinks so or not. It's a game and art, it's not a case of either or.

Movies, music, paintings, writing, etc. all do fall under that definition, I don't know why you think they wouldn't.

The difference is, you are not, by definition, a woman (I'm assuming, lol), but CoD is.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, art is a definable term.

So you agree with the idea of Dadaism? 'Art that is not art' is a valid, without being a paradox (Language paradox not a meta-level idea).

 

[Ariseishirou]

The multiplayer? No.

The single player campaigns? Oh course. They're as much art as any other war story (and better than some, at that).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It does not strike me as being inherently artistic nor do I feel that the act of playing the game could be called an art. Playing any Call of Duty title is purely mechanical in nature and offers level of complexity sufficient to allow a player to succeed through clever application of force. Instead it favors fast and precise reaction, a mechanical skill, which is helped by map knowledge (so that one is pointing their weapon in the most likely place an enemy might appear at any given moment), a simple act of remembering a trend. When you consider that these personal skills are eroded by democratizing elements (killstreak rewards for example) the act of playing the game becomes almost entirely mechanical. By contrast, a well crafted fighting game or RTS title can be elevated to a level of play that would be worthy of the title of "an art", even if it is only seen at the highest levels of play.